Nirvana founder: End Electoral College

As the board chair of FairVote, Nirvana co-founder Krist Novoselic has been studying politics and elections for years. But he’s not exactly chomping at the bit for Tuesday night.

“My prediction is that California is going to go Democratic and Texas is going to go Republican,” Novoselic joked with POLITICO. “This is going to be a completely boring interview because American politics are so predictable.”

Text Size

-

+

reset

FairVote pushes for, among other things, the elimination of the Electoral College in favor of a national popular vote for presidential elections, either through a constitutional amendment or the state-based National Popular Vote plan.

“I’m going to watch a DVD on Election Night,” the bassist said. “And I’ll get up the next morning and it’ll be either Romney or Obama. I’m just not going to stay up all night and, ‘Here comes this state’ or ‘Here comes that state.’”

“Things are going to change very little,” said Novoselic. “Sad, but true.”

On the brighter side of things, Novoselic doesn’t think that’s going to always be the case. He thinks that the momentum towards proportional representation - in which representatives are elected from multi-seat districts in proportion to the number of votes received - will happen, just over time.

“What’s going on right now is the information revolution and that’s transforming society and it’s just going to take a while for the state structure to adapt and get up to speed, but we’re doing it,” said Novoselic. “People are coming together.”

Part of the hurdle in reforming how America elects its presidents is erasing some of the lore that goes along with it, says Novoselic.

“With politics in the United States, it seems like there’s so much mythology and you don’t really have a rational conversation,” said Novoselic. “All of the sudden, it just seems like the second you talk about the Electoral College, the people who want to keep it start waxing nostalgic about the Founders. But did the Founders really think that California would be so uncompetitive?”

It would be refreshing to educate this half wit that we are a republic of 50 states not a democracy of one state, then again actually reading the constitution and understanding minority right and small state rights might not compare to "teen spirit". Go snort your coke and lament the world and "research" your inner self

Adam Young needs to quit public school and read the constitution, electoral college protects small states. Not one visit to N.H, Iowa, Virginia, it would be irrelevant in "democracy" hell let's eliminate states all together! Central planning would be so more efficient. To end electoral college would make small states secede because all power will reside in NY, Ca, Tx, and illinois.

Adam Young needs to quit public school and read the constitution, electoral college protects small states. Not one visit to N.H, Iowa, Virginia, it would be irrelevant in "democracy" hell let's eliminate states all together! Central planning would be so more efficient. To end electoral college would make small states secede because all power will reside in NY, Ca, Tx, and illinois.

Yeah, but NH, IA, and RI are all terrible places and their votes shouldn't count... CA, TX, IL & NY drive our country's economy and are just more important that your little state!

Adam of ca opines, above: The Electoral College was supported by both Parties for the purpose of manipulating the voting results. Politicians have always wanted to decide who works in political offices.

I assume Adam is a product of the public school system. I assume this because Adam, a dumb****, obviously knows nothing about how the electoral college came about.

It all started, Adam, in Philidelphia in the summer of 1787. Up until the presidential election of 1824, there was essentially no popular vote for president. In fact, to this day the states do not have to select their electors by the popular vote of their citizens. The selection of electors is outlined in the 12th Amendment to the Constitution.

The Constitution is an interesting document, Adam. You ought to read it. It's short, fairly simple, and, believe it or not, still the blueprint for our national government. Of course, were you inclined to do what I've just suggested, you'd probably be a Republican. If my suggestion merely bores or even annoys you, you are, no doubt, a devout Obamoronian.

Without the electoral college, battle ground states would still exist, they'd just be very different and probably more of them.

If anything, the rest of the states should do what Nebraska does and chop up each EC vote based on rounded percentages or however they do it. Chances are good that each new red EC coming out of California would be evened out by all the new blue EC's coming out of Texas and other states. Ultimately, not a lot would change other than having the end result match closer with the entire countries popular vote.

I'm curious to find out what Republicans will think of this idea should Romney win the popular vote but lose based on EC's come Wednesday morning. Surely they'll pretend like the EC doesn't even exist at all and Romney won...

The Electoral College preserves the essential reality that the United States is just that, a union of sovereign States. It has been documented over the years that the effect of moving to a majority system would only be that more populated area receive all of the attention.

The only useful change that would preserve the intentions of the founding fathers would be for each State to require that its Electors represent the percentage result of that State. Such a change would ensure that candidates for the Presidency would need to actually focus on the entire country in their campaign and political thinking.

The Electoral College preserves the essential reality that the United States is just that, a union of sovereign States. It has been documented over the years that the effect of moving to a majority system would only be that more populated area receive all of the attention.

The only useful change that would preserve the intentions of the founding fathers would be for each State to require that its Electors represent the percentage result of that State. Such a change would ensure that candidates for the Presidency would need to actually focus on the entire country in their campaign and political thinking.

How is this any different than a popular vote system? You have just made the electorate smaller, nothing more.

As to the complete idiot that said more power to the people... you do realize that the majority of these people are so disinterested in politics that they could not even name who the Vice-President has been for the past 4 years? Or the speaker of the house? or that we actually have this complete tool of a President currently!?

I am sorry but I do not want the inter-city welfare depenedents choosing who runs this country! We have too much vote buying via public aid as it is! It is unsubstainable.